Washington -LRB- CNN -RRB- -- Abdullah al-Kidd -- a U.S. citizen -- was held in jail by the U.S. government for 16 days as a `` material witness '' in an ongoing terror investigation . He was never charged , and never called to testify . Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the Kansas native can hold former Bush administration officials -- especially onetime Attorney General John Ashcroft -- personally liable for wrongful arrest and detention .

In oral arguments Wednesday , the justices appeared split along conservative-liberal lines about both the immunity question and the larger issue of when the government can hold in custody citizens it is unable to charge , for fear they may commit future crimes , including terrorism .

Chief Justice John Roberts said allowing such a lawsuit to proceed would impose a `` heavy burden '' on government officials and police as they do their jobs , for fear `` if they guess wrong , it comes out of their pocket . ''

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called al-Kidd 's experience `` obvious mistreatment '' that perhaps should leave someone accountable .

The case -- with its issue of the limits of `` preventive '' detention , especially in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks -- is the only national security case the high court will address this term .

Material witness laws allow officials to detain those who may have knowledge of crimes committed by others to ensure they would testify in criminal proceedings , including before a grand jury and at trial . American Civil Liberties Union lawyers representing al-Kidd say the government has warped the law to allow open-ended arrests and confinement of citizens , without being later held accountable for those wrongfully held .

Al-Kidd was a college football player at the University of Idaho when he converted to Islam , changing his name from Lavoni Kidd . He eventually began volunteering at an Islamic charity led by a person being investigated for possible terrorism ties .

He was never implicated in wrongdoing , but was interviewed repeatedly and voluntarily by the FBI . He was never told his testimony would be needed in any prosecution , nor was he forbidden to leave the country .

Six months later , in March 2003 , al-Kidd was about to board a plane at Dulles International Airport outside Washington , headed for Saudi Arabia study region for his doctorate . But he was arrested by government agents armed with a material warrant . An affidavit submitted to a federal magistrate said al-Kidd had a one-way first class plane ticket , and that he was `` crucial '' to the prosecution of Sami Omar al-Hussayen .

It was later revealed the ticket was two-way -- indicating he planned to return to the United States -- and he would fly coach class .

In his lawsuit , al-Kidd says he was held in three prisons in Virginia , Oklahoma , and Idaho , under high security with convicted criminals . He says he was routinely shackled , strip-searched , and left naked in a freezing cell while male and female guards watched .

He was freed after more than two weeks , but only after agreeing to surrender his passport and confine his travel , among other conditions . He now teaches in Saudi Arabia and did not attend oral arguments at the high court .

Al-Hussayen , meanwhile , was charged with visa fraud and making false statements . He was acquitted one some of the charges but the jury deadlocked on others . He agreed to be deported to avoid a retrial .

Al-Kidd later sued corrections officials ; that suit was settled out of court . But it is his separate suit against Ashcroft , holding him personally accountable as head of the Justice Department , that is the heart of the current legal fight .

A federal appeals court had allowed his civil lawsuit to continue , but Ashcroft argues officials under his supervision obeyed the letter and spirit of the material witness law . An arrest warrant was properly obtained under the law they said , and even if there were improper motives behind this particular detention , Ashcroft would still enjoy `` absolute '' immunity .

Previous lawsuits by a variety of civil liberty and human rights groups naming Ashcroft and other top Bush officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld , and FBI Director Robert Mueller -- have almost unanimously been tossed out by federal courts on immunity grounds .

In oral arguments , the justices debated the immediate intent of al-Kidd 's detention : Was it to ensure his assistance in an ongoing prosecution , or was it aimed at unlimited detention and investigation ? Al-Kidd claims investigators held him in a desperate attempt to implicate him in the investigation of his friend .

Some members of the bench were clearly uncomfortable with the idea of blanket immunity for the highest government officials , whatever their reasons .

`` Prosecutors can out of spite , out of pure investigative reasoning , out of whatever motive they have , just lock people up , '' said Justice Sonia Sotomayor , while clarifying that may not be what happened in al-Kidd 's case .

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was more blunt , calling some of the allegations `` very disturbing . ''

`` We are talking about the attorney general and the attorney general 's immunity , '' she told the Justice Department lawyer arguing the case . `` But there are allegations here that this man was kept awake , the lights shining in his cell for 24 hours , kept without clothes . Now that does n't sound like the way one would treat someone whose testimony you want . Is there a remedy that he has for that obvious mistreatment ? ''

On the other side , Roberts warned making it easier to sue for violations of the law would open the floodgates to endless lawsuits .

`` The allegation can so readily be made in every case under the material witness statute ... that this is one of those ` bad intent ' cases , and the case has to proceed so that we can prove that . ''

Roberts wondered what an officer faced with deciding whether to proceed with a terror investigation or similarly serious matter would think .

`` If I 'm the officer in that situation , I say , ` Well , I 'm just not going to run the risk of having to sell the house ' '' because his decision could be overturned someday by a court .

Justice Elena Kagan is not participating in the case because she helped brief the case for the government last year as solicitor general , just before joining the high court . That leaves the possibility of a 4-4 tie , which would give victory to al-Kidd , allowing his lawsuit to proceed .

Ashcroft has the support of the Obama administration , which argued the case in the high court , as well as several former attorneys general .

`` We think the way that one vindicates one 's rights is to use the process that is available to those that are arrested to seek their release , '' said Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation , who filed the supporting brief . `` And in fact , Mr. al-Kidd did exactly that . He had a lawyer appointed for him . He went into court on several occasions and within 15 days after the time of his arrest he was released . ''

But about 30 former federal prosecutors are backing al-Kidd .

Lee Gelernt , the ACLU attorney , told CNN the government should not be allowed to do an `` end run '' around the law .

`` Our client would like vindication for his own rights . He would like to see his reputation cleared . But I think , perhaps most of all in his mind , he would like to see the court say that this can not be done anymore and so it does n't happen to people in the future . ''

The case is Ashcroft v. al-Kidd -LRB- 10-98 -RRB- . A ruling is due by late June .

@highlight

Abdullah al-Kidd was held for 16 days as a material witness

@highlight

He wants to sue former Bush administration officials for wrongful detention

@highlight

The justices appear split along conservative-liberal lines